That was hilarious. The lack of any self-awareness among the faithful is always good for a laugh.
"Trump is unfit to lead, so I'm voting for Hillary."
No, Trumpski is unfit to be human, let alone lead. I'm voting for Hillary because she beat Bernie in the primaries.
So you imply that Hillary is fit to lead.
No, I'll come right out and say it. She's fit to lead.
When she is demonstrably not.
So demonstrate it. That describes Trump not Clinton.
What great thing has she accomplished?
What great things has Trump accomplished?
What has she touched while in power that did not end in disaster or scandal?
What things has she done that did end in disaster or scandal? What things has Trump done, period?
[/quote]The conflating of political experience as coaching experience is quite alarming I think. The idea that only the Experts are fit to lead completely gives up on republicanism, and rather says that you aren't fit to govern yourselves, but that the Technocrats are your rightful masters. People making such arguments are either completely unaware of the arguments they make, or they absolutely hate the idea of a republic and self-rule.[/quote]
I would attribute much of what you said to paranoia. This country is of, for, and by the people. YOU are the government. So instead of trying to tear it apart, we should be trying to fix it. Experts in what? Big corporations, and especially billionaires, are dictatorships, not democracies or republics. What makes a lousy businessman/conman qualified to lead a democratic republic?
Here's the real breakdown folks:
Trump is a blowhard who is appealing to the masses. He offers the people what they want when they are asked, which is called Populism. (Personally, I'm a fan of republicanism (little r) so I have serious reservations with that, because it smacks of the tyranny of the majority. Most people want something done about illegal immigrants. Most people want something done about trade. Most people want something done about the stagnation of wages and destruction of opportunity for the blue-collar sector. Most people want to stop invading every little upstart in North Africa and the Middle East. So he promises to do what they ask. It's closer to democracy than technocracy though.
All Trump's promises are empty. What makes people think he'll follow through on any of them? I really want to know.
Clinton is a corrupt kleptocrat and a power-hungry demagogue. She and her friends have sold US interests (including the attempted sale of military secrets to the Chinese) because she has no care for the people, and views them with contempt. She is demonstrably pro-intervention in the Middle East and North Africa, and is posturing for some sort of renewed cold (possibly hot?) war with the Russian Federation. Kleptocracy is a pure tyranny, and is not in the best interests of anyone but those who hold the power at the top.
Grains of truth, but mostly exaggeration.
Johnson is a moron who has no understanding of just about any issue. He is a walking billboard advertisement for why we should ban drugs (and I'm in favor of legalizing them
). He can't hold coherent thoughts, however, for those regressive "progressives" out there, he does offer something you can get behind: Legalize Drugs, Cap and Trade carbon taxes and open borders. He will destroy the country demographically speaking, and many economic sectors will crumble if he has his way, but he's not likely to entangle us in Syria or abroad.
Stein is a communist. Look up the term. She's definitely the most honest of the politicians running, and probably the least crazy (and I'm a free-market liberal). She has a solid understanding of international geo-politics. She is a disaster in many ways, but she is certainly competent. If you're a regressive "progressive" this is your candidate. She's smart. She holds all of the values you claim to hold. She's not obviously corrupt.
I don't disagree about those two, who are essentially irrelevant to this election (except to the extent they siphon support from the major party candidates).
-10th Engineer Harrison